How does the compiler/interpreter know a function is asynchronous? - javascript

I am new to JavaScript and I have a question regarding asynchronous functions when I read about it in the book "JavaScript the good parts":
I understand that the following code will be executed synchronously and may cause delay:
request = prepare_the_request();
response = send_request_synchronously(request);
display(response);
However, the following code is said to be executed asynchronously:
request = prepare_the_request();
send_request_asynchronously(request, function(response){
display(response);
});
How does the compiler(or interpreter? I am not sure how JavaScript is interpreted) know that the second block of code is supposed to be executed asynchronously?
Thank you in advance.
(If the question is not clear please comment and I am sorry for not expressing it clearly.)

Compiler/Interpreter doesn't know that, and actually doesn't care about it. On multiprocess operating systems, two or more threads can run concurrently, and Javascript's XMLHTTPRequest object allows to run the request in a separate thread. This way, Javscript starts the thread, but since it is running in a separate thread, it doesn't wait and continue with next command.

I'll be completely honest... the first time I read that same Callbacks section on page 53 of Javascript, the good parts, I also made the same assumption as you did hahaha, though only later did I find out what the author meant.
Your previous statement isn't actually correct:
However, the following code is said to be executed asynchronously:
Before the Author displays the code with the callback function, he says the following paragraph:
A better approach is to make an asynchronous request, providing a
callback function that will be invoked when the server’s response is
received. An asynchronous function returns immediately, so the client
isn’t blocked:
The important part here is: ...make an asynchronous request, PROVIDING a callback function...
The author was trying to make the point that you could make a function like:
send_request_asynchronously(request, function (response) {
display(response);
});
that doesn't execute function (response) {display(response);} at the time the code is run through the interpreter, but rather some time in the future when a call to send_request_asynchronously is made AND later on in the code you could make it asynchronous. The very code itself has nothing asynchronous about it. It's designed to be called asynchronously later.
The "PROVIDING a callback function" is key to infering this is what the author meant. If you notice, there is no trailing () after the callback function. If you did have a trailing () like so:
send_request_asynchronously(request, function (response) {
display(response);
}());//<--- right here
then the function would execute right then and there when the interpreter was reading through that portion of the code, hence forcing the system to be Synchronous, where as by not including (), you open the door for it to be Asynchronous in the future by implementing code with Asynchronous features that then call this function.
As a final important point, lets remember that this is what makes a callback function a callback function. It is not being invoked when you include the function in the parameter. So for instance, if I make a function called salutations:
var salutations = function (hello(){alert('hi')})
{
alert ('salutations!');
}
and if I had no more code after the previous code, you would never see an alert popup. It would only be invoked when called/invoked after it's declaration/iniciation (HENCE the term: "it's being called back" after it was created AKA callback). However, if I included a trailing () after the callback function, it would then cause the function to actually execute during the declaration and initiation of function salutations.

Related

Returning Chrome storage API value without function

For the past two days I have been working with chrome asynchronous storage. It works "fine" if you have a function. (Like Below):
chrome.storage.sync.get({"disableautoplay": true}, function(e){
console.log(e.disableautoplay);
});
My problem is that I can't use a function with what I'm doing. I want to just return it, like LocalStorage can. Something like:
var a = chrome.storage.sync.get({"disableautoplay": true});
or
var a = chrome.storage.sync.get({"disableautoplay": true}, function(e){
return e.disableautoplay;
});
I've tried a million combinations, even setting a public variable and setting that:
var a;
window.onload = function(){
chrome.storage.sync.get({"disableautoplay": true}, function(e){
a = e.disableautoplay;
});
}
Nothing works. It all returns undefined unless the code referencing it is inside the function of the get, and that's useless to me. I just want to be able to return a value as a variable.
Is this even possible?
EDIT: This question is not a duplicate, please allow me to explain why:
1: There are no other posts asking this specifically (I spent two days looking first, just in case).
2: My question is still not answered. Yes, Chrome Storage is asynchronous, and yes, it does not return a value. That's the problem. I'll elaborate below...
I need to be able to get a stored value outside of the chrome.storage.sync.get function. I -cannot- use localStorage, as it is url specific, and the same values cannot be accessed from both the browser_action page of the chrome extension, and the background.js. I cannot store a value with one script and access it with another. They're treated separately.
So my only solution is to use Chrome Storage. There must be some way to get the value of a stored item and reference it outside the get function. I need to check it in an if statement.
Just like how localStorage can do
if(localStorage.getItem("disableautoplay") == true);
There has to be some way to do something along the lines of
if(chrome.storage.sync.get("disableautoplay") == true);
I realize it's not going to be THAT simple, but that's the best way I can explain it.
Every post I see says to do it this way:
chrome.storage.sync.get({"disableautoplay": true, function(i){
console.log(i.disableautoplay);
//But the info is worthless to me inside this function.
});
//I need it outside this function.
Here's a tailored answer to your question. It will still be 90% long explanation why you can't get around async, but bear with me — it will help you in general. I promise there is something pertinent to chrome.storage in the end.
Before we even begin, I will reiterate canonical links for this:
After calling chrome.tabs.query, the results are not available
(Chrome specific, excellent answer by RobW, probably easiest to understand)
Why is my variable unaltered after I modify it inside of a function? - Asynchronous code reference (General canonical reference on what you're asking for)
How do I return the response from an asynchronous call?
(an older but no less respected canonical question on asynchronous JS)
You Don't Know JS: Async & Performance (ebook on JS asynchronicity)
So, let's discuss JS asynchonicity.
Section 1: What is it?
First concept to cover is runtime environment. JavaScript is, in a way, embedded in another program that controls its execution flow - in this case, Chrome. All events that happen (timers, clicks, etc.) come from the runtime environment. JavaScript code registers handlers for events, which are remembered by the runtime and are called as appropriate.
Second, it's important to understand that JavaScript is single-threaded. There is a single event loop maintained by the runtime environment; if there is some other code executing when an event happens, that event is put into a queue to be processed when the current code terminates.
Take a look at this code:
var clicks = 0;
someCode();
element.addEventListener("click", function(e) {
console.log("Oh hey, I'm clicked!");
clicks += 1;
});
someMoreCode();
So, what is happening here? As this code executes, when the execution reaches .addEventListener, the following happens: the runtime environment is notified that when the event happens (element is clicked), it should call the handler function.
It's important to understand (though in this particular case it's fairly obvious) that the function is not run at this point. It will only run later, when that event happens. The execution continues as soon as the runtime acknowledges 'I will run (or "call back", hence the name "callback") this when that happens.' If someMoreCode() tries to access clicks, it will be 0, not 1.
This is what called asynchronicity, as this is something that will happen outside the current execution flow.
Section 2: Why is it needed, or why synchronous APIs are dying out?
Now, an important consideration. Suppose that someMoreCode() is actually a very long-running piece of code. What will happen if a click event happened while it's still running?
JavaScript has no concept of interrupts. Runtime will see that there is code executing, and will put the event handler call into the queue. The handler will not execute before someMoreCode() finishes completely.
While a click event handler is extreme in the sense that the click is not guaranteed to occur, this explains why you cannot wait for the result of an asynchronous operation. Here's an example that won't work:
element.addEventListener("click", function(e) {
console.log("Oh hey, I'm clicked!");
clicks += 1;
});
while(1) {
if(clicks > 0) {
console.log("Oh, hey, we clicked indeed!");
break;
}
}
You can click to your heart's content, but the code that would increment clicks is patiently waiting for the (non-terminating) loop to terminate. Oops.
Note that this piece of code doesn't only freeze this piece of code: every single event is no longer handled while we wait, because there is only one event queue / thread. There is only one way in JavaScript to let other handlers do their job: terminate current code, and let the runtime know what to call when something we want occurs.
This is why asynchronous treatment is applied to another class of calls that:
require the runtime, and not JS, to do something (disk/network access for example)
are guaranteed to terminate (whether in success or failure)
Let's go with a classic example: AJAX calls. Suppose we want to load a file from a URL.
Let's say that on our current connection, the runtime can request, download, and process the file in the form that can be used in JS in 100ms.
On another connection, that's kinda worse, it would take 500ms.
And sometimes the connection is really bad, so runtime will wait for 1000ms and give up with a timeout.
If we were to wait until this completes, we would have a variable, unpredictable, and relatively long delay. Because of how JS waiting works, all other handlers (e.g. UI) would not do their job for this delay, leading to a frozen page.
Sounds familiar? Yes, that's exactly how synchronous XMLHttpRequest works. Instead of a while(1) loop in JS code, it essentially happens in the runtime code - since JavaScript cannot let other code execute while it's waiting.
Yes, this allows for a familiar form of code:
var file = get("http://example.com/cat_video.mp4");
But at a terrible, terrible cost of everything freezing. A cost so terrible that, in fact, the modern browsers consider this deprecated. Here's a discussion on the topic on MDN.
Now let's look at localStorage. It matches the description of "terminating call to the runtime", and yet it is synchronous. Why?
To put it simply: historical reasons (it's a very old specification).
While it's certainly more predictable than a network request, localStorage still needs the following chain:
JS code <-> Runtime <-> Storage DB <-> Cache <-> File storage on disk
It's a complex chain of events, and the whole JS engine needs to be paused for it. This leads to what is considered unacceptable performance.
Now, Chrome APIs are, from ground up, designed for performance. You can still see some synchronous calls in older APIs like chrome.extension, and there are calls that are handled in JS (and therefore make sense as synchronous) but chrome.storage is (relatively) new.
As such, it embraces the paradigm "I acknowledge your call and will be back with results, now do something useful meanwhile" if there's a delay involved with doing something with runtime. There are no synchronous versions of those calls, unlike XMLHttpRequest.
Quoting the docs:
It's [chrome.storage] asynchronous with bulk read and write operations, and therefore faster than the blocking and serial localStorage API.
Section 3: How to embrace asynchronicity?
The classic way to deal with asynchronicity are callback chains.
Suppose you have the following synchronous code:
var result = doSomething();
doSomethingElse(result);
Suppose that, now, doSomething is asynchronous. Then this becomes:
doSomething(function(result) {
doSomethingElse(result);
});
But what if it's even more complex? Say it was:
function doABunchOfThings() {
var intermediate = doSomething();
return doSomethingElse(intermediate);
}
if (doABunchOfThings() == 42) {
andNowForSomethingCompletelyDifferent()
}
Well.. In this case you need to move all this in the callback. return must become a call instead.
function doABunchOfThings(callback) {
doSomething(function(intermediate) {
callback(doSomethingElse(intermediate));
});
}
doABunchOfThings(function(result) {
if (result == 42) {
andNowForSomethingCompletelyDifferent();
}
});
Here you have a chain of callbacks: doABunchOfThings calls doSomething immediately, which terminates, but sometime later calls doSomethingElse, the result of which is fed to if through another callback.
Obviously, the layering of this can get messy. Well, nobody said that JavaScript is a good language.. Welcome to Callback Hell.
There are tools to make it more manageable, for example Promises and async/await. I will not discuss them here (running out of space), but they do not change the fundamental "this code will only run later" part.
Section TL;DR: I absolutely must have the storage synchronous, halp!
Sometimes there are legitimate reasons to have a synchronous storage. For instance, webRequest API blocking calls can't wait. Or Callback Hell is going to cost you dearly.
What you can do is have a synchronous cache of the asynchronous chrome.storage. It comes with some costs, but it's not impossible.
Consider:
var storageCache = {};
chrome.storage.sync.get(null, function(data) {
storageCache = data;
// Now you have a synchronous snapshot!
});
// Not HERE, though, not until "inner" code runs
If you can put ALL your initialization code in one function init(), then you have this:
var storageCache = {};
chrome.storage.sync.get(null, function(data) {
storageCache = data;
init(); // All your code is contained here, or executes later that this
});
By the time code in init() executes, and afterwards when any event that was assigned handlers in init() happens, storageCache will be populated. You have reduced the asynchronicity to ONE callback.
Of course, this is only a snapshot of what storage looks at the time of executing get(). If you want to maintain coherency with storage, you need to set up updates to storageCache via chrome.storage.onChanged events. Because of the single-event-loop nature of JS, this means the cache will only be updated while your code doesn't run, but in many cases that's acceptable.
Similarly, if you want to propagate changes to storageCache to the real storage, just setting storageCache['key'] is not enough. You would need to write a set(key, value) shim that BOTH writes to storageCache and schedules an (asynchronous) chrome.storage.sync.set.
Implementing those is left as an exercise.
Make the main function "async" and make a "Promise" in it :)
async function mainFuction() {
var p = new Promise(function(resolve, reject){
chrome.storage.sync.get({"disableautoplay": true}, function(options){
resolve(options.disableautoplay);
})
});
const configOut = await p;
console.log(configOut);
}
Yes, you can achieve that using promise:
let getFromStorage = keys => new Promise((resolve, reject) =>
chrome.storage.sync.get(...keys, result => resolve(result)));
chrome.storage.sync.get has no returned values, which explains why you would get undefined when calling something like
var a = chrome.storage.sync.get({"disableautoplay": true});
chrome.storage.sync.get is also an asynchronous method, which explains why in the following code a would be undefined unless you access it inside the callback function.
var a;
window.onload = function(){
chrome.storage.sync.get({"disableautoplay": true}, function(e){
// #2
a = e.disableautoplay; // true or false
});
// #1
a; // undefined
}
If you could manage to work this out you will have made a source of strange bugs. Messages are executed asynchronously which means that when you send a message the rest of your code can execute before the asychronous function returns. There is not guarantee for that since chrome is multi-threaded and the get function may delay, i.e. hdd is busy.
Using your code as an example:
var a;
window.onload = function(){
chrome.storage.sync.get({"disableautoplay": true}, function(e){
a = e.disableautoplay;
});
}
if(a)
console.log("true!");
else
console.log("false! Maybe undefined as well. Strange if you know that a is true, right?");
So it will be better if you use something like this:
chrome.storage.sync.get({"disableautoplay": true}, function(e){
a = e.disableautoplay;
if(a)
console.log("true!");
else
console.log("false! But maybe undefined as well");
});
If you really want to return this value then use the javascript storage API. This stores only string values so you have to cast the value before storing and after getting it.
//Setting the value
localStorage.setItem('disableautoplay', JSON.stringify(true));
//Getting the value
var a = JSON.stringify(localStorage.getItem('disableautoplay'));
var a = await chrome.storage.sync.get({"disableautoplay": true});
This should be in an async function. e.g. if you need to run it at top level, wrap it:
(async () => {
var a = await chrome.storage.sync.get({"disableautoplay": true});
})();

Understanding asynch behaivor of javascript with an example

I'm completely new in javascript and I'm trying to understand its asynch nature. For this purpose here is my sample code :
$("#calculate-similarity").click(function(){
// assume input is an array whose length is larger than 0
var requestData={"uris":input,"limit":100};
client=new Ajax(requestData);
alert('inside .click function');
})
Ajax=function(requestData){
alert('inside ajax');
$.ajax({
url: 'http://localhost:8080/',
type:'POST',
dataType: 'json',
contentType: 'application/json',
data: JSON.stringify(requestData),
xhrFields: {
withCredentials: true
}
}).done(function(data) {
$("#ws-results").children().detach();
$("#ws-results").append('<table id="my-final-table"><thead><th>fname</th><th>furi</th><th>sname</th><th>suri</th><th>similarity</th></thead><tbody></tbody></table>');
$('#my-final-table').dynatable({
dataset: {
records:data
}
});
});
}
Now, above, I'm creating new Ajax() and inside of it, I'm making a ajax request. As far as I know its asynch event. Therefore, I though that, this request should be completed first of all, and then my other javascript lines (alert('inside .click function')) should be executed. In other words, I would expect :
1) alert inside ajax
2) show my datatable on the browser
3) alert inside .click function
However, I got with the following order :
1) alert inside ajax
2) alert inside .click function
3) show table on the browser
So, what do you suggest me to understand these concepts ? I've a solid background with several programming languages like c++ and java but this is my first time with web development and javascript.
EDIT
If I modify my .click function like below, do you say first of all always 10000 times hello will be printed out and then table will be shown ? Or table would be shown somewhere at the middle of logging ? I mean when the response comes, engine should wait first in order to show it ?
Modified code : (Let's remove all of the alert statements)
$("#calculate-similarity").click(function(){
// assume input is an array whose length is larger than 0
var requestData={"uris":input,"limit":100};
client=new Ajax(requestData);
for(var z=0;z<10000;z++){
console.log(z+'hi!');
}
})
As far as I know its asynch event. Therefore, I though that, this request should be completed first of all, and then my other javascript lines should be executed.
That is exactly the opposite of what it means.
The Ajax function will run. It will trigger an HTTP request. The Ajax function will finish. alert will run.
At some point in the future, the HTTP response will arrive and the done event handler will fire.
This is exactly the same principle as:
alert(1);
$("#calculate-similarity").click(function(){ alert(2); });
alert(3);
JavaScript doesn't wait for you to click on calculate-similarity before firing alert(3).
If I modify my .click function like below, do you say first of all always 10000 times hello will be printed out and then table will be shown ? Or table would be shown somewhere at the middle of logging ? I mean when the response comes, engine should wait first in order to show it ?
JavaScript won't interrupt a running function in order to execute a different (event handler) function. It will wait until it isn't busy before it goes looking for events.
new Ajax is object instantiation and it's synchronous. Therefore you get inside ajax as the first result because it happens when your Ajax object is instantiated, not to be confused with when the Ajax request is fired.
alert is executed synchronously, so that's the second thing you get.
$.ajax which wraps around XMLHttpRequest, responsible for firing the actual ajax request, is the only async part in your code and its result, which is encapsulated inside done, is what you get last.
In other words, I think the confusion comes from the fact that you introduce another layer of abstraction called new Ajax() which provide little actual value and a lot of confusion :P. inside ajax signal inside the instantiation of your Ajax object, not the firing of the actual request.
I'll try my best to explain it. Think of this more as an analogy, it's not exactly what's going on but I think it might help you understand:
alert('inside ajax'); - this is a blocking call, it will run and wait for you to click OK.
Then when you call Ajax, what you're essentially doing is saying "go make this web request when you have a chance, and when it finishes call my done method." That's a network operation. It could finish in 1 second, it could take many seconds. Rather than freezing up the whole browser, this is done "in the background." So that makes the UI remains responsive. At some point in the future the network request will finish. When it does, the function you specified in done will get called to let you know it finished. Think of making the Ajax request as adding it to a queue rather than actually connecting to the network. When the browser gets to it it will execute your request and wait for the server to respond. When it does, it will signal you to let you know.
Next you alert('inside .click function'); which displays the alert and blocks.
Like I said, that's not a technically accurate description of what's going on, but I'm hoping it helps you understand the principle of it.

Why will my subsequent Meteor method calls not wait for the first one to finish when I call Meteor.setTimeout()?

I am fairly new to Meteor, fibers and futures and I am trying to understand how Meteor methods work. It is my understanding that each method call from a client would wait for a previous one to finish. This belief is mostly based on the documentation of the this.unblock() function in the Meteor docs. However, when I try setting up a simple example with a Meteor.setTimeout() call this does not seem to be a correct assumption.
methodCall.js:
if (Meteor.isClient) {
Template.hello.events({
'click button': function () {
Meteor.call('test', function(error, result){
});
}
});
}
if (Meteor.isServer) {
Meteor.methods({
test: function(){
console.log("outside");
Meteor.setTimeout(function(){
console.log("inside");
return 'done';
}, 2000);
}
});
}
When triggering the 'click button' event several times the terminal output is as follows:
outside
outside
outside
outside
inside
inside
inside
inside
and not alternating between outside and inside as I would expect. I think there is a very relevant bit of information on Meteor.setTimeout() I am missing, but I could not find anything in the documentation indicating this behaviour. What am I missing and is there a way of making the Meteor method invocations from a client wait until a previous invocation is finished before starting the execution of the next?
I found this question on SO which seemed promising, but the question is more focused on blocking the possibility to call the method from the client side. Likewise, the accepted answer is not completely satisfying as it focuses on making subsequent calls skip certain code blocks of the Meteor method instead of waiting for the first invocation to finish. This very well be the answer I guess, but I really want to understand why the method call is not blocked in the first place as I feel the Meteor documentation indicates.
The answer is that the setTimeout callback is executed outside the fiber in which the method is running. What that means is that the method actually finishes execution (returning undefined) before the setTimeout callback is ever invoked, and you get the behavior you observed.
To provide a better test (and for an example of using asynchronous functions in methods), try this:
if (Meteor.isServer) {
var Future = Npm.require('fibers/future');
Meteor.methods({
test: function(){
var fut = new Future();
console.log("outside");
Meteor.setTimeout(function(){
console.log("inside");
fut.return('done');
return 'done';
}, 2000);
return fut.wait();
}
});
}
The return value from your setTimeout callback doesn't actually go anywhere, it just curtails that function (i.e. the callback, not the method). The way it's written above, the Future object, fut, is supplied with the return value once the callback runs, but the main method function (which is still running in its original fiber) is prevented from returning until that value has been supplied.
The upshot is that unless you unblock this method, you will get the expected output as the next method invocation won't start until the previous one has returned.
UPDATE
In general, anything with a callback will have the callback added to the event loop after the current Fiber is closed, so timeouts, HTTP calls, asynchronous DB queries - all of these fall into this category. If you want to recreate the environment of the method within the callback, you need to use Meteor.bindEnvironment otherwise you can't use any Meteor API functionality. This is an old, but very good video on the subject.

Procedural order of jQuery functions inside JS [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
What does Asynchronous means in Ajax?
jQuery ajax return value
Trying to do a function that contains a jQuery function (getJson()) as part of it, but when I run it, my javascript function returns before calling the getJson(). I want to know why the getJson is not being called in order, and how to fix it.
function getUsers(screen_name){
user_list=[]
var id_list =[]
$.getJSON(url, function(json)
{
//do stuff here, I have breakpoint #1 here
});
return user_list //breakpoint #2 is here
}
When running it from the console: getUsers('myUser') it firsts gets to breakpoint #2 and then to breakpoint #1.
getJSON() is asynchronous by default. That means that calling it just starts the operation and the rest of your javascript continues to run. Sometime later, the asynchronous operation finishes and the success handler is called with the returned data.
Any code that needs access to the returned data must either be in the success handler or in a function that you call from the success handler. You cannot use an asynchronous function and just return the user_list like you are trying to.
Instead, you will have to rethink how your code is organized so that the code that uses the user_list is in the success handler or is called from the success handler.
getJSON() can be set to be synchronous, but that is generally a bad way to program in javascript because it locks up the browser for the duration of the networking call which is generally a bad user experience. Instead, if you write the code properly to deal with it being aschronous, then the browsers stays completely interactive for the full duration of the ajax call.

javascript outside of scope

Based on chrome developer tools a breakpoints I think I'm dealing with a scope issue I can figure out. Is it the way I define the function? The script below is an include js file and the array ' timeStamp I want available for use in other functions without having to call my loadData function everytime.
The timeStamp array goes undefined once it leaves the for loop before it even leaves the function.
var timeStamp = []; // Want this array to be global
function loadData (url){
$.getJSON(url, function(json) {
for (var i=0;i<json.length;i++){
timeStamp.push(json[i].TimeStamp);
}
console.log(inputBITS); //returns the value
});
console.log(inputBITS); //undefined
}
Thank you for anyhelp
It looks like the issue is that getJSON is asynchronous. When it executes and finishes and your code continues on, it indicates only the START of the networking operation to retrieve the data. The actual networking operation does not complete until some time later.
When it does complete, the success handler is called (as specified as the second argument to your getJSON() call) and you populate the timeStamp array. ONLY after that success handler has been called is the timeStamp array valid.
As such, you cannot use the timeStamp array in code that immediately follows the getJSON() call (it hasn't been filled in yet). If other code needs the timeStamp array, you should call that code from the success handler or use some other timing mechanism to make sure that the code that uses the timeStamp array doesn't try to use it until AFTER the success handler has been called and the timeStamp array has been populated.
It is possible to make some Ajax calls be synchronous instead of asynchronous, but that is generally a very bad idea because it locks up the browser during the entire networking operation which is very unfriendly to the viewer. It is much better to fix the coding logic to work with asynchronous networking.
A typical design pattern for an ajax call like this is as follows:
function loadData (url){
$.getJSON(url, function(json) {
// this will execute AFTER the ajax networking finishes
var timeStamp = [];
for (var i=0;i<json.length;i++) {
timeStamp.push(json[i].TimeStamp);
}
console.log(timeStamp);
// now call other functions that need timeStamp data
myOtherFunc(timeStamp);
});
// this will execute when the ajax networking has just been started
//
// timeStamp data is NOT valid here because
// the ajax call has not yet completed
// You can only use the ajax data inside the success handler function
// or in any functions that you call from there
}
And here's another person who doesn't understand basic AJAX...
getJSON is asynchronous. Meaning, code keeps running after the function call and before the successful return of the JSON request.
You can "fix" this by forcing the request to be synchronous with an appropriate flag, but that's a really bad idea for many reasons (the least of which is that you're violating the basic idea of AJAX). The best way is to remember how AJAX works and instead put all your code that should be executed when the AJAX returns, in the right place.

Categories